This law decree is still waiting for its actual enforcement to come. It otherwise studies the problems connected with forcedly repatriations and irregular non-EU citizens’ expulsions.
This law decree appears to be rather doubtful; it in fact doesn’t seem to be answering to the real needs the government says expulsions have. The devolution to justice of peace of this fundamental issue was specifically criticised. It in fact may happen that repatriations and all eventual consequences are quickly and hasty treated.
Expulsions and repatriations must be decided within 48 hours and judges that are now to sentence have always been taking care of “side causes”, which means substantial justice, i.e. matters that need to be solved with equity more than with jurisprudence.
Today justice of peace is to move, thanks to the quoted decree, to serious juridical matters that must be decided within only 48 hours. Judges are to be paid €20 each case.
We also believe that the enforcement of this law decree is to raise many problems from a strictly juridical point of view.
Few days ago the Tribunal of Venice hosted a meeting between local authorities, police headquarters, Prefecture, Justice of peace and the head of Tribunal; the meeting’s aim was to evaluate the application of this law decree.
The first discussed matter was the determination of the qualified judge in the territory that is to take care of forced repatriations and eventual expulsion orders. The qualified judge is to be to the one working in the main court of the town, not the one employed in detached sections. The idea is that the qualified judge is the one working in the place where expulsions and repatriations are being ordered.
There are some doubts on how to solve some particular situations, for instance that are to decide if expulsion was ordered in a place and repatriation in another?
According to law decree the same judge should take care of the eventual appeal promoted by the interested migrant citizen against expulsion and this fact would move to tribunal audience to another court, the one that must decide over expulsion.
In addition to this qualified judges will only have 48 hours to decide and this is rather problematic.
Example – Repatriation order comes, local justice of peace must decide whether the order is to be brought into act or not, but here another problem stands: in the meanwhile migrants are to be detained inside a detention centre. In Venice there are no detention centres, the closest are in Modena and Bologna. How is this to be dealt? Migrants must be taken to cpts, taken back to court within 48 hours and then thy may be either repatriated or taken back to the centre, which may be a few hundreds of kms far away.
Venetian authorities chose to solve this matter in the following way: migrants are not going to be taken to cpts, they are to stay at police headquarters and the juridical matters are to be immediately solved by justice of peace.
Another fundamental issue is how to guarantee the right to self-defence. The judge has very little time to decide, therefore there is no time to formalise summonses and to define all juridical bureaucracy matters. Even appointing a lawyer will be difficult. If migrants manage to appoint their own legal advisor, will he/she make it? Can a lawyer be called only 24 hours – the most – in advance? Can needed evaluations, documents, etc, be collected in such a short period of time?
The same judge then will need to sentence upon repatriation/expulsion and upon the eventual appeal promoted by the interested person. How can this happen? We imagine that appeal must be presented at the same time lawyers will start studying the case.
What happens if migrant citizens do not know any lawyer?
Migrants will do with free legal assistance. Counsellors for the defence appointed by the Court are to be always ready to defend people they most probably have met just few minutes before going to court. These lawyers will of coarse never have the time to study the case and prepare a real defence against repatriation.